Kim Pegula returning next season- Kim Pegula

[dudacek]

Internet tough guys and agenda-driven zealots naturally gravitate to attacking professional writers. Happens on every news site. Writers have little to gain and much to lose from interacting with them. Writers also carry the expectation that they will be attacked into internet conversations and behave accordingly.

(For the record, I don't think that is what happened here this round with Wawrow at all)

[Taro T]

15 minutes ago, shrader said:

I'm not so sure we have a unique vibe here.  I can only thing of two reporters showing up here and we chased both of them off.  I've seen that exact thing play out in the college hockey community as well.  To me it looked pretty much exactly like what we've had here and TSW.  I think most people are welcoming, but the few voices who do cause the trouble, it is almost completely due to the high volume of their attacks.

Not a reporter per se but Brad Riter used to hang out here as well as the 2 reporters.

[Stoner]

2 hours ago, IKnowPhysics said:

 

The bottom line is that the same toxic poster(s) have been slinging the same toxic garbage for years.  They're enabled by a message board technology that doesn't have downvote functions that would allow upstanding members and lurkers to consistently blast terrible threads and comments into the shadow realm.  I'm not claiming that a reddit style is the pinnacle of internet conversation, but it does a better than average job of quickly and naturally disposing of the worst of the worst- something that's not done here.  Hell, I have several posters on ignore, but that doesn't prevent them from dragging everyone else down and establishing this forum's reputation.

A career sports journalist visits the board, has to defend his work from truly garbage posts from a long time garbage poster instead of meaningfully engaging with thoughtful discussion, he points this out, and the forum moderator says he needs a sense of humor and that's he's disrespectful and obnoxious.  It's madness.  And it makes the board poison.

Should a journalist be given special treatment?  No.  But as weave put it:

Ideally, you'd want cooperation.  Realistically, you have combativeness.

A while back, in a personal internet quality-of-life move, I decided to proactively break Cunningham's Law by deciding to never respond to someone on the internet if the point of that response was to correct them or tell them they were wrong.  The outcome?  I haven't posted in months.

 

Wawrow, while not eloquent, is fundamentally correct.

+5299

Edited June 16, 2020 by PASabreFan
It went up

[nfreeman]

 

2 hours ago, IKnowPhysics said:

 

The bottom line is that the same toxic poster(s) have been slinging the same toxic garbage for years.  They're enabled by a message board technology that doesn't have downvote functions that would allow upstanding members and lurkers to consistently blast terrible threads and comments into the shadow realm.  I'm not claiming that a reddit style is the pinnacle of internet conversation, but it does a better than average job of quickly and naturally disposing of the worst of the worst- something that's not done here.  Hell, I have several posters on ignore, but that doesn't prevent them from dragging everyone else down and establishing this forum's reputation.

A career sports journalist visits the board, has to defend his work from truly garbage posts from a long time garbage poster instead of meaningfully engaging with thoughtful discussion, he points this out, and the forum moderator says he needs a sense of humor and that's he's disrespectful and obnoxious.  It's madness.  And it makes the board poison.

Should a journalist be given special treatment?  No.  But as weave put it:

Ideally, you'd want cooperation.  Realistically, you have combativeness.

A while back, in a personal internet quality-of-life move, I decided to proactively break Cunningham's Law by deciding to never respond to someone on the internet if the point of that response was to correct them or tell them they were wrong.  The outcome?  I haven't posted in months.

 

Wawrow, while not eloquent, is fundamentally correct.

That's not what I said.  I said other posters may say things to JW that JW views as being disrespectful and obnoxious.  I did say that I would rather JW let those statements slide off of him and keep a sense of humor about it, so that part was more or less accurate.

 

[SwampD]

16 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

 

That's not what I said.  I said other posters may say things to JW that JW views as being disrespectful and obnoxious.  I did say that I would rather JW let those statements slide off of him and keep a sense of humor about it, so that part was more or less accurate.

 

In your next archival analysis, can you tell us how many threads that jw posted in became threads about jw.

Starting with this one.

[Weave]

4 hours ago, IKnowPhysics said:

 

The bottom line is that the same toxic poster(s) have been slinging the same toxic garbage for years.  They're enabled by a message board technology that doesn't have downvote functions that would allow upstanding members and lurkers to consistently blast terrible threads and comments into the shadow realm.  I'm not claiming that a reddit style is the pinnacle of internet conversation, but it does a better than average job of quickly and naturally disposing of the worst of the worst- something that's not done here.  Hell, I have several posters on ignore, but that doesn't prevent them from dragging everyone else down and establishing this forum's reputation.

A career sports journalist visits the board, has to defend his work from truly garbage posts from a long time garbage poster instead of meaningfully engaging with thoughtful discussion, he points this out, and the forum moderator says he needs a sense of humor and that's he's disrespectful and obnoxious.  It's madness.  And it makes the board poison.

Should a journalist be given special treatment?  No.  But as weave put it:

Ideally, you'd want cooperation.  Realistically, you have combativeness.

A while back, in a personal internet quality-of-life move, I decided to proactively break Cunningham's Law by deciding to never respond to someone on the internet if the point of that response was to correct them or tell them they were wrong.  The outcome?  I haven't posted in months.

 

Wawrow, while not eloquent, is fundamentally correct.

I'll take it a step further.  Our most popular posters are often the most combative here.  This is who we are.  It's not really arguable.

[shrader]

4 hours ago, Weave said:

I'll take it a step further.  Our most popular posters are often the most combative here.  This is who we are.  It's not really arguable.

I’m not so sure popular is the right word. The most vocal? Definitely. If you want popularity, my vote forever lies with @Wilbur

[Thorner]

On 6/16/2020 at 1:15 PM, IKnowPhysics said:

Wawrow, while not eloquent, is fundamentally correct.

Fundamentally correct....saying the board is useless....pass

[Thorner]

On 6/16/2020 at 6:03 PM, Weave said:

I'll take it a step further.  Our most popular posters are often the most combative here.  This is who we are.  It's not really arguable.

Who?

- - - 

I think I must be woefully ignorant of some confrontations against JW because the tone he took with regard to the board as a whole seemed misplaced to me. I must be missing context because there seems to be a fair bit of agreement with his position. 

Edited June 19, 2020 by Thorny

[DeleteThisAccount]

On 6/16/2020 at 9:22 AM, LGR4GM said:

Describe something positive for this team that isn't Eichel or Dahlin that has occurred in the last two years. 

 

Now to the second bolded. It is a readers job, no responsibility to question the sources of a news report. If the United States as a whole took the time more often to question where information is coming from we would be a lot better off. We should always question your sources and that of any reporter so we as readers can understand where and why that information was created and released. I take extreme offense at the idea readers shouldn't question sources, it is actually something readers should be doing more not less.

 

I get a twitter message to check back in, and give this a third shot, and yet what do i find at first glance.

and here we go again. uou miss the entire point, but that's to be expected as you attempt to politicize this discussion.

i'm quite confident i've established my reputation in Buffalo for more than 20 years of breaking news on various fronts, Sabres and Bills related.

rather than being rewarded with some semblance of trust, i get this.
 

but of course that wasn't my point at all. the point was my previous encounters on this message board involved people essentially believing that Larry Quinn was my only source. And then it was Russ Brandon.

both have been long gone, and yet i am still breaking news on various fronts.

do the math.

 

jw

 

[DeleteThisAccount]

On 6/16/2020 at 12:21 PM, nfreeman said:

So, in a quest for fairness, I went back and read @john wawrow's posts over the years.

It's certainly true that a couple of posters -- in particular @Hoss and @Ghost of Dwight Drane -- took a number of shots at him, and I can totally understand him thinking "I don't need this aggravation from these DBs."  In the board's defense, I will note that those posters aren't really a representative sample of the broader membership -- both of them had serious problems interacting with others.  One has been permanently banned, while the other has been suspended more than any other poster.

I think it's also true that JW didn't exactly react to the shots he took with a jocular, devil-may-care sense of good humor -- and when a number of other posters (including me at one point) noted a certain thin-skinnedness, JW got more PO'd and lashed back.  Understandable, perhaps, but also unnecessary and probably not his finest moments.

Bottom line, IMHO is that on the one hand, I think everyone here would like to have JW as a poster and a resource, and most here respect JW's work, while from time to time disagreeing with or doubting certain items that might be reported.  On the other hand, though, it is inevitable that on a message board, someone will from time to time say the wrong thing -- i.e. something that from JW's perspective can be reasonably viewed as disrespectful or obnoxious.  In those situations, I would hope that JW would let the offending post go by without getting worked up about it.

Of course, it's up to him whether participating in the discussion here and getting feedback, story ideas, etc. from a devoted (and IMHO quite knowledgeable) portion of the fan base is worth the aggravation. 
 

 

I'm guessing this was the post i was supposed to read in being invited back for a third time.

call it thin-skinned if you like, but i think you hit the nail on the head with your other observation in what's really the point of putting up with the aggravation of having to defend myself every time i post in the face of people questioning my sources, calling out my work as being filled with "whoppers" or reporting posts that essentially quoted my entire story, thus violating this board's rules when it comes to copyrights.

at the very least, on TBD, i've established a rapport with some of the posters, and feel i have some protection when the unfair attacks come.

here, it's just piling on.

jw

[shrader]

2 minutes ago, john wawrow said:

 

I'm guessing this was the post i was supposed to read in being invited back for a third time.

call it thin-skinned if you like, but i think you hit the nail on the head with your other observation in what's really the point of putting up with the aggravation of having to defend myself every time i post in the face of people questioning my sources, calling out my work as being filled with "whoppers" or reporting posts that essentially quoted my entire story, thus violating this board's rules when it comes to copyrights.

at the very least, on TBD, i've established a rapport with some of the posters, and feel i have some protection when the unfair attacks come.

here, it's just piling on.

jw

I mentioned it earlier, but some people just won't be happy unless you give them your sources.  It's perfectly reasonable that you should sacrifice your career in order to satisfy an anonymous message board poster.

[Weave]

3 minutes ago, john wawrow said:

 

here, it's just piling on.

jw

It is.  But it's mostly because the rest of us have decided that the people you are referring to aren't worth the energy.  It's like mud wrestling with a pig.  You either enjoy the mud or you don't.

I'd love to have you as a regular contributor, but understand the frustration.

[Pimlach]

18 minutes ago, john wawrow said:

 

I'm guessing this was the post i was supposed to read in being invited back for a third time.

call it thin-skinned if you like, but i think you hit the nail on the head with your other observation in what's really the point of putting up with the aggravation of having to defend myself every time i post in the face of people questioning my sources, calling out my work as being filled with "whoppers" or reporting posts that essentially quoted my entire story, thus violating this board's rules when it comes to copyrights.

at the very least, on TBD, i've established a rapport with some of the posters, and feel i have some protection when the unfair attacks come.

here, it's just piling on.

jw

I think it would be great to have the media actively posting here.   I have enjoyed your postings on TBD.  Yes, there are some people here that cannot be wrong and you know who they are so work around them.

My daughter is a journalist in DC and she covers national defense.  She deals with Congress, all branches of the military, and all of the major aerospace companies.  A young lady out of college needs thick skin to break in and establish credibility.    She did it with minimal coaching from crusty old Punch. 

You are a 20 year vet and a man in male dominated world.  You can do this.  Join in and provide some insights and things will get better. 

Edited June 19, 2020 by Pimlach

[LGR4GM]

10 minutes ago, shrader said:

I mentioned it earlier, but some people just won't be happy unless you give them your sources.  It's perfectly reasonable that you should sacrifice your career in order to satisfy an anonymous message board poster.

I am not asking for his sources. I am saying it is legitimate as a reader to question or consider who those sources are. 

[DeleteThisAccount]

6 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

I am not asking for his sources. I am saying it is legitimate as a reader to question or consider who those sources are. 

The AP has strict policies on sourcing, limiting it to people having direct knowledge of the situation, and not provide opinion.

You obviously believe there's something more nefarious going on.

And yes, you are asking for my sources by questioning their legitimacy. You can't have it both ways.

Trust me, don't trust me, but at the very least check my track record.

jw

Edited June 19, 2020 by john wawrow

[LGR4GM]

23 minutes ago, john wawrow said:

 

I get a twitter message to check back in, and give this a third shot, and yet what do i find at first glance.

and here we go again. uou miss the entire point, but that's to be expected as you attempt to politicize this discussion.

i'm quite confident i've established my reputation in Buffalo for more than 20 years of breaking news on various fronts, Sabres and Bills related.

rather than being rewarded with some semblance of trust, i get this.
 

but of course that wasn't my point at all. the point was my previous encounters on this message board involved people essentially believing that Larry Quinn was my only source. And then it was Russ Brandon.

both have been long gone, and yet i am still breaking news on various fronts.

do the math.

 

jw

 

There's that condescension again. "you miss the point but that is to be expected." It is perfectly legit for anyone reading anything to question where that information is coming from. If that bothers you so much as a journalist than the problem lies with you. Why should I not wonder where you are getting your information from and why that information was given to you? Why should I not verify your information?

As a read I should get multiple sources and perspectives not just one, do you not agree?

What am I supposed to trust? Your sources? You? So again you are back to saying you cannot be questioned and shut up and trust you. I read your article. There were several issues with it but whatever, no one is perfect. I then moved on only to find you here basically saying that I am required to trust everything you say because "but that's to be expected as you attempt to politicize this discussion." I am not politicizing anything. I work in a field that literally requires me to evaluate information sources and believe that ppl should do that even for things like you. 

What else you got? Because honestly you missed my point entirely or at least breezed over it. 

[DeleteThisAccount]

Just now, LGR4GM said:

There's that condescension again. "you miss the point but that is to be expected." It is perfectly legit for anyone reading anything to question where that information is coming from. If that bothers you so much as a journalist than the problem lies with you. Why should I not wonder where you are getting your information from and why that information was given to you? Why should I not verify your information?

As a read I should get multiple sources and perspectives not just one, do you not agree?

What am I supposed to trust? Your sources? You? So again you are back to saying you cannot be questioned and shut up and trust you. I read your article. There were several issues with it but whatever, no one is perfect. I then moved on only to find you here basically saying that I am required to trust everything you say because "but that's to be expected as you attempt to politicize this discussion." I am not politicizing anything. I work in a field that literally requires me to evaluate information sources and believe that ppl should do that even for things like you. 

What else you got? Because honestly you missed my point entirely or at least breezed over it. 

Did I say that? Did I demand that you trust everything I say.

Please point out exactly where I wrote that, bubba.

Or did you -- in the cool game of accusing me of you doing the exact same thing -- simply skim over my last post and cherry pick what you thought you read?

jw

[LGR4GM]

1 minute ago, john wawrow said:

The AP has strict policies on sourcing, limiting it to people having direct knowledge of the situation, and not provide opinion.

You obviously believe there's something more nefarious going on.

And yes, you are asking for my sources by questioning their legitimacy. You can't have it both ways.

Trust me, don't trust me, but at the very least check my track record.

jw

No I do not. I don't think there is anything nefarious but I do have the right, actually responsibility, to read critically and be curious about the source of the information.  

I am not asking you for your sources, I am simply wondering in my own head who they are and why they are giving you information. That isn't nefarious, that is just being a critical thinker.

Also all news has opinion in it. No piece especially in the news lacks opinion because opinion is bias and it creeps in. Again I am not upset by that or criticizing you for it. I am not even saying I find your stuff overly opinionated. 

[DeleteThisAccount]

Just now, LGR4GM said:

No I do not. I don't think there is anything nefarious but I do have the right, actually responsibility, to read critically and be curious about the source of the information.  

I am not asking you for your sources, I am simply wondering in my own head who they are and why they are giving you information. That isn't nefarious, that is just being a critical thinker.

Also all news has opinion in it. No piece especially in the news lacks opinion because opinion is bias and it creeps in. Again I am not upset by that or criticizing you for it. I am not even saying I find your stuff overly opinionated. 

(but you'd be happier if you knew who my sources were, given how team hirings/firings and player signings/releases -- all  factually based happenings -- have biases).

how do you spend all this time posting here, given all the time you have to spend each day re-confirming the world isn't flat and that it revolves around the sun?

jw

[LGR4GM]

1 minute ago, john wawrow said:

Did I say that? Did I demand that you trust everything I say.

Please point out exactly where I wrote that, bubba.

Or did you -- in the cool game of accusing me of you doing the exact same thing -- simply skim over my last post and cherry pick what you thought you read?

jw

Bubba? Not sure what you are implying by that but would love to find out why you just called me Bubba? 

You expressed that you are owed some trust. "rather than being rewarded with some semblance of trust" and I am saying that I should always be critical of things I read. It isn't just applying to you. We should all be critical of things we read and find additional readings to make sure we are getting the entire picture and everything lines up. So to be a good informed person on this team, I should read multiple ppl. 

 

[LGR4GM]

1 minute ago, john wawrow said:

(but you'd be happier if you knew who my sources were, given how team hirings/firings and player signings/releases -- all  factually based happenings -- have biases).

how do you spend all this time posting here, given all the time you have to spend each day re-confirming the world isn't flat and that it revolves around the sun?

jw

More condescension. All because I suggested we should be critical of the things we read and wonder about sources of information. 

As a fan of course I would love to know who said what but obviously that information will never be released but again I am simply saying that as a reader I should think critically and wonder about those things. That isn't some weird insane idea. If I read a peer reviewed article, I still read it critically. 

[Weave]

We should install one of those outdoor shower thingies.

[SwampD]

I just find it a little curious that an article comes out on Thursday, June 11th, titled “Pegula focused on efficiency; staying on as Sabres President,” then a full bloodletting occurs a few days later.

Not nefarious, but certainly not coincidence, either.

Edited June 19, 2020 by SwampD

[dudacek]

As I said earlier, I respect your work and would love an opportunity to talk hockey with you.

I also appreciate how bigmouth keyboard warriors can make Interaction a waste of time for someone in your position. And I am sorry that is the impression your interactions here have reinforced, but I think @nfreeman and @Weave have responded well to those concerns.

This board is not an obnoxious circle jerk. Like any community, you will enjoy the company of some more than others. But by and large, it is place where a lot of good people and smart Sabres fans get together to talk passionately about their passion. Spend any length of time here and I think you will see that.

Edited June 19, 2020 by dudacek